Paz Arroyo1, Iris D. Tommelein2 and Glenn Ballard3 ABSTRACT Decisions in the architecture, engineering and construction industry need to be supported by decision-making methods. Choosing By Advantages (CBA) offers methods that support the creation of transparency and collaborative environments in which to make decisions. This paper provides an example of how CBA can be of support when choosing materials, in this case ceiling tiles, in a commercial-building interior-design project considering global supply-chain issues. The results show that CBA is helpful in integrating multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, in identifying relevant sustainability factors based on the decision context, in making transparent trade-offs between advantages of the alternatives, in providing documentation for the decision rationale, and in separating “value” and cost. Materials that are judged to be more sustainable than others in one geographic location, may be judged less sustainable than others elsewhere. KEYWORDS Decision-making, Choosing By Advantages, Management, Supply Chain Management. INTRODUCTION Decision-making methods can influence decision outcomes. According to Suhr (1999), decision-making methods influence people’s decisions, decisions trigger actions, and finally actions cause outcomes; consequently, if outcomes matter, then the decision-making methods also matter. Here we focus on deciding on the selection of a material. Material selection for a commercial building’s interior design affects outcomes in terms of the building’s lifecycle, including environmental-, social-, and economic impacts. Specifically, it will affect the users’ indoor environmental quality, involving light, acoustics, air quality and thermal comfort. In addition, it affects the environment. Finally, it affects the economics of the project, given their initial cost, maintenance cost, life expectance, replacement cost, construction sequence, procurement lead time, etc. Different from traditional buildings, sustainable projects will have more stakeholders involved and more factors when selecting materials.






Graduate Student Researcher, Engrg. and Project. Mgmt. Program, Civil and Envir. Engrg. Dept., Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1712, USA, Phone +1 (510) 386-3156; Professor, Civil and Envir. Engrg. Dept., and Director of the Project Production Systems Laboratory (, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1712, USA, Phone +1 (510) 643-8678, Research Director, Project Production Systems Laboratory (, Civil and Envir. Engrg. Dept., Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1712, USA,

Product Development and Design Management


(2009). cost or price) after attributes of alternatives have been evaluated based on factors and criteria. An element. It is important to note that CBA considers money (e. stakeholders need to assess the importance of these advantages by making comparisons among them. This demand results in more complex supply chain management. This paper presents a case study in which designers chose ceiling tiles for a global commercial-building interior-design project. July 2013 | Fortaleza. Iris D. It understands case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within real-life context. Examples of CBA applications in the AEC industry can be found in Parrish and Tommelein (2009). decisions are based solely on the advantages (Principle 2) (rather than advantages and disadvantages) thereby avoiding double counting. Suhr developed it while working in the U. METHODOLOGY This research is based on case-study methodology as recommended by Yin (1994).S. Once the advantages are found. (2) decisions must be based on the importance of the advantage. Tommelein and Glenn Ballard Globalization together with the rise of multinational companies have created demand for commercial buildings that require a similar look-and-feel. (2012a and b). Brazil . social-. especially because sustainability decisions in building design are tightly linked to the problem context. part. or construction systems. or component of a decision. Nguyen et al. Specifically. an advantage is a beneficial difference between the attributes of two alternatives. A ‘want’ criterion represents preferences of one or multiple decision makers. gain. Alternatives Factor Two or more construction methods. This definition is aligned with the scope of this research. Table 1: CBA Definitions. Criterion Attribute Advantage The CBA system has four principles: (1) decision makers must learn and skilfully use sound methods of decision making. The weighting process should be specifically 310 Proceedings IGLC-21. A decision rule. CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGES (CBA) CBA is a decision-making system that supports sound decision-making using comparisons among advantages of alternatives. In CBA. improvement. and environmental aspects. factors should represent economic-. For assessing sustainability. (3) decisions must be anchored to the relevant facts. Forest Service. Grant (2007). and Arroyo et al. building designs.g.. from which one or a combination of them must be chosen. or betterment. or consequence of one alternative. A benefit.Paz Arroyo. A characteristic. quality. in order to create a strong corporate identity and an effective work environment. if not an identical design. A ‘must’ criterion represents conditions each alternative must satisfy. or a guideline. Table 1 presents CBA definitions adapted from Suhr (1999). (4) different types of decisions call for different sound methods of decision making. materials. especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin 1994). In this paper we apply the Tabular Method of Choosing By Advantages (CBA) to overcome the challenge of managing information when selecting sustainable materials while accounting for the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in global corporate offices.

Criteria will be used to evaluate attributes of alternatives. (3) the Decision-making Phase. Decide the advantages 6. 1. In step 7. Identify  alternatives 2. stakeholders summarize the attributes of each alternative. stakeholders agree on the criteria within each factor. They use the paramount advantage to assign an IofA scale. which is the most important advantage among all. First they have to select the paramount advantage. The choice of scale does not distort the evaluation. In step 5. while seeking LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) gold certification. in which the client. factors. In step 2. finally. they define factors with the purpose of differentiating between alternatives. This phase raises the following questions: Are any additional alternatives that to be considered? Does the importance of advantages accurately represent the viewpoint of the stakeholders? APPLICATION EXAMPLE: CHOOSING CEILING TILES This case study applied CBA to a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) project. they identify the least preferred attribute for each criterion. However. or other types of data (Suhr 1999. Define  factors 3. and then decide on the advantage of each alternative’s attribute relative to that least-preferred one. The IofA for each alternative is summed. A criterion can be either a desirable (want) or a mandatory (must) decision rule. stakeholders evaluate cost data and select from the alternatives. not generally on criteria. Stakeholders then use this scale to weigh other advantages. Alternatives that do not comply with a must criterion are not considered in the following steps. they decide on the importance of each advantage (IofA). Define  must/want have  criteria for each  factor 4. a Global Information Technology company wanted to renovate their offices in many locations around the world. Stakeholders need to explicitly state their preferences for these IofAs. stakeholders choose alternatives likely to yield important advantages over other alternatives. Once an alternative has been chosen. Decide the  importance of  each  advantage 7. In step 3. A large architectural firm needed to rapidly Product Development and Design Management 311 . phase (3) originally considers only steps 4 to 5 in Suhr’s book (1999). and (5) the Implementation Phase. with the IofA of any least-preferred attribute always getting a zero relative to itself (the paramount advantage was assigned 100 IofAs in Table 3). p. This process is highly collaborative and the design team should be involved at every stage. Evaluate  money data Figure 1: CBA Steps In step 1. Summarize  the attributes  of each  alternative 5. (4) the Reconsideration Phase. Here we describe the decision-making process in 7 steps (Figure 1). The focus of this paper is on phase (3). incorporating a holistic analysis into the sustainability decision-making process. In step 4. 80). The CBA Tabular Method for moderately complex decisions has five phases: (1) the Stage-Setting Phase. The previous steps are part of the innovation phase. (2) the Innovation Phase. In step 6.Using ‘choosing by advantages’ to select ceiling tile from a global sustainable perspective on the importance of these advantages. the group will take time to reconsider their decision (Phase 4) as a whole.

This information was obtained by direct communication with the design team. though they expressed that they may not always have the time to analyze decisions at this level of detail. She read relevant literature and attended a 2 day CBA workshop (Koga 2012). criteria for selection and attributes of the alternatives were articulated. Aesthetically all options look the same and all can be installed with the same system (Tegular). the researcher presented the relevant information for the decision-making process. The main design choices in terms of cost for those interior design projects were the carpet. (1) The researcher facilitated the decision-making process. availability. what worked well and what did not. etc. 312 Proceedings IGLC-21. STEP BY STEP CBA APPLICATION Step 1: Identify Alternatives. and Tokyo because these were thought to be representative of strategic locations in the world. barriers for implementation and future applications in the company. (9) The process and the results of the decision were analyzed in a post-decision meeting to gather further insights about the method. The researcher (the first author on this paper) analyzed the availability of specific products for different locations and conducted a deeper analysis on ceiling tile alternatives considering one manufacturer. installation procedures. For this study. (5) The researcher prepared a training session for the design team that covered the following points: importance of the decision-making process. The alternatives considered are shown in Table 2. and furniture. Iris D. so the interaction between the design team could be analyzed later. ceiling tile. Dublin. (4) The researcher was able to identify competitive alternatives and gather relevant information from manufacturers and designers. Tommelein and Glenn Ballard and consistently design many global locations. (10) Finally. (2) The researcher obtained access to the project information and was aware of the background of the decision.Paz Arroyo. The design team was asked about the procedure. relevant factors. CASE STUDY PROTOCOL The case study protocol describes the steps that the researcher followed for applying CBA in this project. All ceiling tiles are available in 2’x2’ and 3’x4’ sizes. in terms of lead times. which was videotaped. This document was sent to the design team to obtain feedback. In this case. For this case study. aesthetics. access was enabled through an internship. In addition. From there. an example of a CBA application. (6) The researcher discussed the alternatives to analyze with the design team. so she had to master the CBA system. the design team analyzed San Francisco. New York. the case study report was sent to the design team for feedback. The design team recognizes the benefits of using CBA. (7) The researcher led a decision session. and assumptions behind the data presented. (3) The researcher had to understand the requirements for product selection (in this case ceiling tile). the process for obtaining the information. description of CBA methodology. but it could have just as easily compared products from different manufacturers. the design team looked at just one manufacturer (Armstrong). Brazil . Sydney. July 2013 | Fortaleza. discussion and questions. (8) The researcher documented the decision-making process and wrote recommendations for choosing ceiling tiles. including EPD (Environmental Product Declaration). LEED credits. The San Francisco location was designed first and used as a prototype for the other locations around the world.

7 for open spaces. Step 2: Define Factors. Factors and criteria considered in this decision are summarized in Table 3 (first column). Therefore. Many factors were not considered in the decision-making process since the alternatives have similar attributes for those factors (e. Some attributes have a standard evaluation in which case it is easy to establish a criterion (e. etc. However. For example recycled content. Optima PB Fiberglass with plant based binder Hilliard. China. PA. In other cases.g. Stakeholders need to identify factors that will help differentiate between alternatives. for mineral fiber tiles an antimicrobial treatment on the face and back is required to obtain acceptable performance. FL. The mold and mildew resistance can be tested using the ASTM D 3273 method. The criterion for this factor is: More microbial resistance is better. OH Ultima Mineral fiber Pensacola. some factors that had the same purpose were merged together. Factor 4 Weight: Here the stakeholders decided that a lighter material would be better. the stakeholders agreed that surface scratch resistance is desirable. the minimum acceptable NRC value is 0. because it would be easier to install than a heavier material.. We next explain what stakeholders understood by each factor and their criteria for evaluation. In addition. Therefore. OH Optra Biosoluble glass wool Shanghai. For fiberglass tiles this is not an issue because it does not contain organic compounds. Step 3: Define the “must”/”want to have” criteria for each factor. NRC is a measure of the average percentage of noise that a material absorbs in the mid-frequency range. Shanghai. locally-sourced material. A criterion can be a “must have” or a “want to have”. energy use. Using the falling ball impact test (procedure similar to ASTM D 1037). It is not about which factor is most important. For each factor.. Germany. weight. Factors that have an impact on the decision will change depending on the attributes of the alternatives. Factor 2 Anti-microbial barrier: This factor accounts for the ceiling tile’s resistance against the growth of mold and mildew. The criterion for this factor is: More resistant to scratches and impact is better.Using ‘choosing by advantages’ to select ceiling tile from a global sustainable perspective Table 2: Ceiling tiles alternatives Alternative Material Manufactured in Optima Fiberglass Hilliard. Factor 1 Acoustics: In this particular case.g.). stakeholders need to describe what they want (e. which represents a more holistic view of the environmental impacts. Marietta. China. were all contained in the Global Warming Potential factor. and the Hess Rake Test. Munster. Product Development and Design Management 313 . all alternatives have the same fire resistance rating). insulation value. The criterion for this factor is: Lighter is better. guaranty period. which accounts for scratch resistance. stakeholders decided that the Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) would be important due to the high percentage of open spaces.g. Anti-microbial barrier). ceiling tiles will be removed frequently for plenum access. In this case. stakeholders need to agree on criteria on which to base their judgement of alternatives. the criterion for this factor is: A higher NRC value is better. Factor 3 Durability: In this instance we will consider impact and scratch resistance. which accounts for surface impact.. and the importances assigned to advantages.

Tommelein and Glenn Ballard Factor 5 Insulation Value: This accounts for a material resistance to heat transfer. Brazil . transportation to job site (manufacture data assumes 500 miles of transportation).’ The criterion for this factor is: No added formaldehyde is better. 314 Proceedings IGLC-21. transport of raw materials to production facility. transportation mode and manufacture plant location. Here specifically this means materials without added formaldehyde.. The attributes of factor WGP will vary according to the project site.Paz Arroyo. July 2013 | Fortaleza. The criterion for this factor is: Less CO2(e) emissions is better. this depends on how long the client plans to stay in the same office building. Iris D. The least preferred attributes are underlined and will be used as comparison points to describe advantages. Encompassing raw material production. The attributes of each alternative can be found in the manufacturer’s technical documents and the EPD data. manufacturing of ceiling panels. Factor 8 Global Warming Potential (GWP): This factor accounts for the environmental impact of the materials. the researcher adjusted the transportation to job site portion of the LCA. EPDs account for CO2(e) emissions using a life cycle analysis (LCA). The criterion for this factor is: Higher R-value is better. It is measured using the R-Value. Since most sites are not located within 500 miles from the nearest site of tile manufacturing. use phase. Here stakeholders decided to use the environmental product declaration (EPD) provided by the manufacturer. packaging. in which a higher value indicates a higher thermal resistance. Factor 6 VOC (Formaldehyde): This factor accounts for the indoor air quality that will result from the selection of ceiling tile. Step 4: Summarize the attributes of each alternative. Stakeholders agree that low VOC materials are desirable. The criterion for this factor is: More years of guarantee is better. and end of life including disposal or recycling. Stakeholders agreed that materials must comply with California Department of Health Services (CHPS) Standard Practice for the testing of VOC Emissions and qualify for ‘Low-Emitting. However. Exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health. Table 3 summarizes the attributes of the alternatives. according to estimated distances from manufacture plant to site. The analysis also considered the transportation mode (truck or vessel) according to manufacturer information. Factor 7 Guaranty: Stakeholders defined that having more years of guarantee is desirable.

55 (lbs/sqft) Adv.: R Factor 2. Att.: 0.: 35 Imp.: Lower is better 8.: Att.: 0 Imp.: Imp.: 0 Adv.: Higher is better 4.8 BTU higher Att: Free of Formaldehyde Att: Inherent Adv.9 Adv.: 0.: 54 t CO2eq Adv.: 0 Imp.:0 Imp.: Free of Form.: Att.: 68 t CO2eq Adv.: 25 Imp.: 0 Imp.: 0.: Scratch resistance Impact resistance Adv.2 Higher noise resistance Att: Inherent Adv.: 30 Imp.: 15 More Years of Guarantee Att.: Higher is better 6.66 (lbs/sqtf) Imp.5 ppb Adv.: Att: Free of Formaldehyde Adv.: Lower is better 8. Durability Crit.8 BTU Imp.: 90 Imp.:19 t CO2 less Imp.2 BTU Imp.: 44 t CO2eq Adv.: 35 445 450 450 445 450 This alternative is not available in SF This alternative is not available in NY Att.: 0 Imp.: Imp.: 50 lighter Att.: R Factor 4.9 Adv.less than 13.0 BTU Adv.: 0.: Att.:15 t CO2 less Att. CO2 Emiss.: 23 t CO2eq Adv.: 90 Imp.: 30 Year Guarantee Adv.95 Att: 0.:35 Imp.5 ppb Adv.: 61 t CO2eq Adv.: 22 t CO2eq Adv. CO2 Emission Tokyo Crit.: No Scratch resistance No Impact resistance Adv.: 0.: Lower is better 7.: 45 Imp.8 BTU higher Att.: 45 Imp.:15 t CO2 less Att.: Imp.: More resistant to Scratches and impact Att. VOC Formaldehyde Crit.: Att.: 70 t CO2eq Adv. CO2 Emiss.: R Factor 3.: Att. CO2 Emission SF Crit.: Free of Form.: 275 t CO2eq Adv.:8 t CO2 less Att.: 1.: Imp.: 0.: 100 Adv.: 15 Microbial Att.: 90 Adv.: 80 t CO2eq Adv.: 1.55 (lbs/sqft) Adv.: Att.: It has BioBlock+ Imp.: 35 240 235 240 .: 0 Imp.:14 t CO2 less Att.: 30 Imp.: 0.: 392 t CO2eq Adv.: R Factor 4.48 (lbs/sqft) Adv.: 54 t CO2eq Adv.: 35 Imp.: More resistant to Scratches and impact Att.: 0.2 Higher noise resistance Imp.: 100 Imp.: 15 Adv.: Better AntiMicrobial Optra (Fiberglass) Adv.: 30 Imp.: 0.: 30 Imp.: t CO2eq less Att.: 0 Imp.: Better Anti-Microbial Ultima (Mineral Fiber) Att.7 Optima Plant Based (Fiberglass) Att.: 30 Imp.: 15 More Years of Guarantee Att.: 275 t CO2eq Adv.: 30 t CO2eq Adv.:35 Imp.: Imp.0 BTU Adv.: 30 Year Guarantee Adv.: 100 Imp.: Lower is better 8.: Imp.: 0.: Att.: 35 355 360 360 355 360 Imp.14 (lbs/sqft) Adv. Guaranty Crit.: Higher is better 2.: Lower CO2 emission is better 8.: Att.: 1.:15 Year Guarantee Imp.: 56 t CO2eq Adv. CO2 Emission NY Crit.:12 t CO2eq less Adv.:14 t CO2 less Att.: Scratch resistance Impact resistance Adv.59 (lbs/sqtf) lighter Att.: 25 Imp.: Imp.: 15 More Years of Guarantee Att.0 BTU Adv. Factor & Criterion 1.: 0.: 58 t CO2eq Imp. Sydney Crit.: Better AntiImp. Acoustics NRC Crit.: Higher is better 3.: 25 Att.:7 t CO2 less Att.: Imp.: Longer is better 8.: 44 t CO2eq Adv.: 30 Year Guarantee Att: Low Formaldehyde .:19 t CO2 less Att.: 0.: 22 t CO2eq Adv.: 40 higher Att: Low Formaldehyde .: 90 Imp. Weight Criterion: Lighter is better 5.25 Higher noise resistance Att: Inherent Adv.: More resistant to Scratches and impact Att.Table 3: CBA steps 1-6.: Scratch resistance Impact resistance Adv. Att.59 (lbs/sqtf) lighter Att.: 90 Adv.: 50 Imp.: Lower is better Total IofA SF Total IofANY Total IofA Tokyo Total IofA Sydney Total IofA Dublin Optima (Fiberglass) Att: 0.: 61 t CO2eq Adv.: 205 205 205 205 205 Adv. Anti-microbial Crit.less than 13.: 15 Att.: 50 Imp.:8 t CO2 less Att.:14 t CO2eq less Att.:7 t CO2 less Att.Insulation Value Crit. Dublin Crit.:35 Imp.

Sydney or Dublin does not make sense since Optra costs less and it has advantages that are more important. considering the amount of ceiling tiles required in each office. Table 3 presents the advantages of the GWP factor for each location. getting 15 vs. In this example.5 IofA higher value in the NRC rating (0. This part of the process is collaborative and decisions are reached through discussion within the design team. stakeholders will be losing some advantages if they select Optra over Optima PB. Tommelein and Glenn Ballard Step 5: Decide the advantages of each alternative. with 15 years of guarantee (90 IofAs). Note that for each factor there will be always at least one alternative that does not have an advantage because it is the one that has the least preferred attribute or characteristic in that criterion. A more detailed procedure is to first identify the most important advantage for each criterion (in italics in Table 3) and then choose the paramount advantage. the criteria are applied to identify the advantages. the total importance of each alternative is computed. assign importance points to the other advantages. including using a product with vs. The decision. However.95 of Optima PB – 0. In this way it is easy to compare which alternative provides a higher Importance of Advantages (IoA) score (Table 3). In this case the advantage ‘free of added formaldehyde’ was the second most important advantage (90 IofAs). Iris D. Brazil . The most important advantage for each factor is shown in italics. because it will make an important difference in the user experience. assign an importance score to the most important advantages for each criterion (the ones in italics in Table 3) by comparing them with the paramount advantage. Therefore. the design team plots the total IoA score for each alternative against the local cost (Figures 4). To evaluate cost data. Next. Step 6: Decide the importance of each advantage. Once all advantages have been assigned IofAs. Finally. July 2013 | Fortaleza. deciding collaboratively on the importance of the advantages Step 7: Evaluate cost data. An easy way of assigning IofAs to advantages is to write them in post-it notes. choosing Ultima for Japan. Optra is a cheaper option than Optima or Optima PB. is whether or not to spend more money on an alternative that provides more advantages. as defined by the paramount advantage).Paz Arroyo. without formaldehyde. then. The client vision should be considered in every trade-off that is made. In this case stakeholders decided that the 2. the advantages were easily found. Once the attributes are summarized. In the short term. 30 years of guarantee and no vs. and finally place the notes according to their importance relative to others (Figure 3). some scratch 316 Proceedings IGLC-21. In this case. This depends on the client and other investment choices they face. 100 0 List the advantages of  each  alternative  Discuss the importance of each  advantage Figure 3: Step 6.7 Ultima) was the paramount advantage. then draw a scale from 0 to 100 (or any other convenient scale. stakeholders assigned 100 IofAs to this paramount advantage.

55 (lbs/sqft). (2) Time for analysis exceeds the expectation of the team for choosing materials in this type of project. (3) Not all manufactures have an EPD. Figure 4: CBA Results for the different locations. Data collection can be challenging. (4) CBA was helpful in providing documentation for the decision-making rationale. the decision of using Ultima vs. stakeholders are able to provide clear rationale for their decisions. Recommending the selection of Optima vs. Optima PB will depend on the budget of the project ($0.Using ‘choosing by advantages’ to select ceiling tile from a global sustainable perspective and impact resistance. Barriers that were identified in applying CBA for choosing a sustainable alternative were: (1) Intensive time use in data collection. so the alternatives are reduced. But stakeholders will be winning other advantages such as using a product that weight 0. In addition. (2) CBA was helpful in the identification of relevant sustainability factors applicable for the decision context. 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral Cost per SF. 0. especially for comparing products from the environmental perspective. (3) CBA was helpful in identifying advantages that were relevant for making transparent and conflict-free trade-offs between alternatives. (5) CBA was helpful in separating the “value” of the alternatives from the cost of alternatives.25 more per sf may not be available). using CBA. Finally. For New York and San Francisco Optra is unavailable in the market. An extensive time analysis may be appropriate for other projects in which the owner demands a rationale for the decision. 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral Cost per SF. they can use their CBA tables and money-vs-IoA plots to learn from project to project. The manufacturer also will learn about what tradeoffs designers make when selecting products. 1901ral Tokyo Optra Ultima  Optima  PB Optima  1901ral 1900ral 1900ral IofA Sydney Optra Ultima  Optima  PB Optima  IofA 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral Cost per SF. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this case study that may be generalized are: (1) CBA was helpful in integrating multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. (7) CBA structure made easy to incorporate the supply chain portion of the decision.48 (lbs/sqft) vs. cost. 1901ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral Cost per SF. However.25 more per sf. (4) It was not possible to get all relevant stakeholders Product Development and Design Management IofA 1900ral 1900ral Optima Optra  Ultima  317 . Optima PB is not difficult because Optima PB does not have formaldehyde and costs only $0.   Optima PB New York 1901ral Optima PB  IofA Optima  1900ral San  Optima PB Francisco Optima Ultima 1901ral Dublin IofA 1900ral Ultima  1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral 1900ral Cost per SF. making it easier to trade off “value” vs. (6) CBA was helpful in organizing factors that had different attributes depending on location (Global Warming Potential factor).

CA. Architecture and Design Research. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. P.armstrong. CA. 15-17 July. especially for manufacturers. “Deciding a Sustainable Alternative by ‘Choosing By Advantages’ in the AEC Industry”. P. At the same time. and in a long term. findings.pdf Accessed 3/19/2013. I. or Gensler. this information can be transformed into market feedback. Parrish.” Proc. G. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. July 2013 | Fortaleza. H.Paz Arroyo. and Ballard.. J. Any opinions. VA. R. CA. PhD Dissertation. (2009). Quorum. Brazil . or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of P2SL. (2007). “Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Select Sustainable Alternatives in the AEC Industry”. Grant. Sage Publications. Proc. J. 501-510. Conf.D. Therefore. 318 Proceedings IGLC-21. G. 171 pp. Taipei. Arroyo. (2012) “Choosing By Advantages Sound Decisionmaking. I.. Tommelein.” CBA workshop Module 1 and Module 2. Koga. Finally. 15-17 July. CONICYT. 371382. conclusions. In this case. 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 17). Tommelein. Westport. The Choosing By Advantages Decisionmaking System. 20th Ann. (2009).com/ common/c2002/content/files/72527. Lostuvali. Kirsten Ritchie and designers from Gensler San Francisco for their support in this case study. I. Iris D. San Francisco. Nguyen. K. as they understood them. D. P. Arroyo. (1999). 6-7 June. Int’l. Environmental Product Declaration” Available at: http://www. architects and interior designers assigned the importance of advantages representing the client values. 300 pp. (2012b). San Diego. We would like to thank Erin Cubbison. TX. CT. (2012a). Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). fellowship from the Chilean government. and contractor were not present. Taipei. if designers use CBA to select materials.. Tommelein I. A Decision-Making Framework for Vegetated Roofing System Selection. Taiwan..” Proc. Yin. E.. an owner’s representative. Taiwan. Arroyo is supported by a CONICYT Ph. High Performance Fiberglass. Thousand Oaks. Tommelein. REFERENCES Armstrong (2012) “Optima Ceiling Panels. K. and Ballard. Engineering and Construction (ICSDEC). B. “Making design decisions using Choosing By Advantages. when compared to making decisions using less structured methods. 293 pp. V. 17th Annual Conf.. “Decision Analysis Using Virtual First-Run Study of a Viscous Damping Wall System. Inc. Group for Lean Constr. final user. produce more sustainable materials. (1994). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was supported in part by gifts made to the Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL). In addition. it would be easier for them to select more ‘sustainable’ materials according to their values. Int’l. Suhr.. Blacksburg. Tommelein and Glenn Ballard together in one room at the moment of the decision.. Fort Worth. 2nd International Conference for Sustainable Design. (IGLC 17). so their new product development is aligned with what the industry is asking for. D.